Samantha Schartman: AI Will Widen the Digital Divide — Cross-Sector Co-Investment Could Provide a Bridge
We need new ways to fund programs, and the Alt Funding Field Guide makes the case that digital inclusion creates economic value
In the foreword of a new report on funding pathways for digital inclusion programs, broadband policy heavyweight Blair Levin writes:
[W]hile the cost of digital exclusion is already large and growing, Artificial Intelligence will magnify the cost…later this decade we will view the implications of AI as similar to how Covid-19 vividly demonstrated the unacceptability of digital exclusion.
We can already see Blair’s prediction play out, as early adopters use AI agents to automate complex work, while others still struggle to complete tasks like online job applications. We urgently need to build more digital onramps before the gap compounds. Success in the AI era will hinge on the ability to pivot and keep learning; digital skills are the foundation that makes that possible.
But while Covid-19 activated the funding levers to tackle the digital divide, now this funding is disappearing: the Affordable Connectivity Program has sunset, BEAD funding has been scaled back, E-Rate is at risk, and, though a recent court decision puts Digital Equity Act funds back in play, it remains unclear if and when those funds will land.
Digital adoption initiatives are too important to leave to shifting political will. That’s why, with support from Mission Telecom Giving, Connect Humanity has been working with a group of cross-sector experts on finding pathways to new funding mechanisms that put this work on a more stable foundation. The Alt Funding Field Guide is our first publication.
It starts from the premise that we need to stop treating digital inclusion like a charitable nice-to-have, but instead as essential infrastructure that creates economic value.
This value extends far beyond the participants of any given program. Someone who completes a digital skills course might renew a license online instead of making a trip to a government office, apply for a job through a portal, and see a doctor over telehealth instead of missing a shift to do it in person. The local government saves on transaction costs. The employer gets a qualified hire, and the state collects new payroll tax revenue. The clinic bills for a visit it wouldn't otherwise have had. But there’s a good chance that none of those institutions paid a cent toward the training that made it possible.
Across six chapters, the guide shows the same pattern in sector after sector, like in housing, where greater digital adoption can help stabilize rent collection and reduce maintenance cost, and in telecoms, where digital adoption is effectively customer acquisition.
If digital inclusion programs disappear, the participants aren't the only ones who lose out. So do the local governments, employers, clinics, housing authorities, and others who've quietly enjoyed the benefits of digital inclusion programs, without contributing to the community organizations that deliver them.
The guide lays out a framework for turning this broad reliance on digital inclusion programs into funding structures that can sustain them. Traditional grant-making starts with a funding source (e.g. a grant program), designs a program to fit it, then measures what it achieves. This framework instead starts with what a community actually needs (uses), identifies who benefits economically and by how much (repayment), and only then structures the right mix of funders (sources).
In healthcare, that might mean a health system funding digital navigators to help patients use remote monitoring tools (uses). The payer sees fewer hospitalization costs as complications get caught and treated earlier and simpler cases triaged virtually (repayment). Instead of relying solely on grants, a payer contract or value-based care arrangement can route some of those avoided costs back to fund the navigators (sources). In workforce development, digital skills training helps participants find and keep jobs (uses), which directly improves the placement and earnings outcomes workforce boards are already accountable for hitting (repayment). That gives boards a reason to fund training out of their own performance-tied budgets, rather than treating it as a one-off grant-funded add-on (sources).
This inversion changes the conversation for community technology programs from "how much can we get?" to "how much value can we create?". Asking potential co-funding partners which outcomes they are willing to pay for rather than “will you support digital inclusion?” leads to a more fruitful conversation.
That's the conversation we're trying to start. Levin is right to see AI as an accelerant of digital exclusion that demands new thinking. This is our first step towards finding the alternative funding paradigms needed to sustain this work. If you're interested in exploring this with us, reach out, we'd like to collaborate.
Samantha Schartman is Director of Philanthropic Programs at Connect Humanity. The Alt Funding Field Guide is available here. This Expert Opinion is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.
Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.
